Current Clinical Perspectives on Rosacea Management: Insights From a Korean Multicenter Expert Opinion Survey

There has been a proliferation of physicians of different levels of experience and training offering nonsurgical cosmetic procedures. Rising demand, compounded by increasing utilization of new and existing technologies by numerous physician specialties, compels discussion of adequate standardized training and patient safety. A retrospective chart review of patients who presented to our single site dermatology clinic for managment of complications following chemical peel, laser or energy-based device treatments performed by core cosmetic physicians between the years of 2013 and 2024 was conducted. Core cosmetic physicians included plastic surgery, facial surgery/otolaryngology, oculoplastic surgery, and dermatology. Charts were reviewed for documentation of the type of complication, procedure causing the complication, and physician credentials, and referral source. Twenty-five patients were identified as having complications from chemical peeling, laser treatment or energy-based devices. Devices implicated included CO2 laser (fractional or fully ablative), chemical peels, 1064 nm long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser, 1320 nm Nd:YAG laser, intense pulsed light, 595 nm pulsed dye laser, Q-switched Nd:YAG laser, radiofrequency with and without microneedling, and 1550 nm erbium-doped fiber laser. Complications included hypertrophic scarring, atrophic scarring, post-inflammatory erythema, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, and post-inflammatory hypopigmentation. Even in experienced hands, complications can arise. It is imperative that all physicians offering cosmetic treatments are equipped to recognize clinical endpoints, identify and manage complications, or make a timely referral to decrease the risk of a permanent and potentially devastating esthetic outcome for patients.

Objective To study the feasibility of joint phototherapy in the treatment of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation and non-drug therapy in clinical popularization value of 1064 nm Q-switched laser in combination with low energy intense pulsed noncoherent light for secondary pigmentation. Methods A total of 128 patients with post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation were randomly divided into 3 groups according to different treatments: first group (42 cases) was subjected to low energy 1064 nm Q-switched laser treatment; second group (40 cases) had intense pulsed light treatment; third group (46 cases) had low energy 1064 nm Q-switched laser plus intense pulsed light therapy. Results After treating for 6 times, the effective rates of intense pulsed light and Q laser were 50% (20/40) and 52.4% (22/42), respectively, without statistical significance between two groups (P>0.05). Effective rate of the third group was 73.9% (34/46), with significant difference (P<0.05), compared with the first two groups. Conclusions For those who refuse any drug treatment, low energy 1064 nm Q-switched laser with intense pulsed light therapy is an effective option to facial post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation. Furthermore, it has obvious and safe effect without complications and deserves popularization. Key words: Q-switched laser; Intense pulsed light; Perpigmentation

Pulsed dye lasers (PDLs) are considered the treatment of choice for port-wine stains (PWS). Studies have suggested broadband intense pulsed light (IPL) to be efficient as well. So far, no studies have directly compared the PDL with IPL in a randomized clinical trial. To compare efficacy and adverse events of PDL and IPL in an intraindividual randomized clinical trial. Twenty patients with PWS (face, trunk, extremities; pink, red and purple colours; skin types I-III) received one side-by-side treatment with PDL (V-beam Perfecta, 595 nm, 0.45-1.5 ms; Candela Laser Corporation, Wayland, MA, U.S.A.) and IPL (StarLux, Lux G prototype handpiece, 500-670 and 870-1400 nm, 5-10 ms; Palomar Medical Technologies, Burlington, MA, U.S.A.). Settings depended on the preoperative lesional colour. Treatment outcome was evaluated by blinded, clinical evaluations and by skin reflectance measurements. Both PDL and IPL lightened PWS. Median clinical improvements were significantly better for PDL (65%) than IPL (30%) (P = 0.0004). A higher proportion of patients obtained good or excellent clearance rates with the PDL (75%) compared with IPL (30%) (P = 0.0104). Skin reflectance also documented better results after PDL (33% lightening) than IPL (12% lightening) (P = 0.002). Eighteen of 20 patients preferred to receive continued treatments with PDL (P = 0.0004). No adverse events were observed with PDL or IPL. Both the specific PDL and IPL types of equipment used in this study lightened PWS and both were safe with no adverse events. However, the PDL conveyed the advantages of better efficacy and higher patient preference.

Exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun is known to have a deleterious effect on the skin. Repeated insults to the dermal matrix from UV radiation result in the clinical signs of photodamage, including changes in skin elasticity, color, and texture. UV radiation also leads to the accumulation of DNA mutations and promotes tumor development, resulting in the formation of cutaneous precancerous and cancerous lesions. Continuous-wave incoherent blue light, intense pulsed light (IPL), and pulsed dye laser (PDL) are safe and efficacious light sources commonly used for aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy (PDT). The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of PDT for the treatment of photodamage and actinic keratoses using four different combinations of light sources: PDL, PDL + blue light, IPL, and IPL + blue light. A total of 220 patients with either photodamage or actinic keratosis (AK) were recruited from the Miami Dermatology Laser Institute (Miami, FL) and were assigned prospectively to undergo one PDT treatment with one of the four light options: PDL, PDL + blue light, IPL or IPL + blue light. Of the 220 patients enrolled in treatment groups, 214 patients completed the study. Of the 214 patients, 88 received treatment for AK, and 126 received treatment for photodamage. All patients gave their consent to participate in the study and to allow their photographs to be utilized for the purpose of scientific presentations. Treatment with IPL resulted in a 70.8% reduction of actinic keratoses at a 1-month follow-up. Treatment with IPL and blue light 84.4% reduction of actinic keratoses at 1 month follow up. Treatment with PDL 70.5% reduction of actinic keratoses at 1 month follow up. Treatment with PDL and blue light 69.3% reduction of actinic keratoses at 1 month follow up. Treatment with IPL resulted in an improvement score of 2.9. Treatment with IPL and blue light resulted in an improvement score of 3.0. Treatment PDL resulted in an improvement score of 1.5. Treatment with PDL andblue light resulted in an improvement score of 1.8. Although all four treatment groups led to some improvement in signs of photoaging, IPL + blue light again demonstrated increased efficacy when compared to IPL, PDL, and PDL + blue light treatment groups. Results from our study were limited by an unequal distribution between treatment groups and a lack of follow-up beyond a 1-month period and warrant further research.

The prevalence of rosacea in skin of color (SOC) populations is estimated to be as high as 10% in some countries. Traditionally, intense pulsed light (IPL) and pulsed dye laser (PDL) have been the laser and energy-based devices (EBDs) used to treat rosacea. However, not all laser and EBDs are safe for SOC (Fitzpatrick skin types IV-VI) due to increased absorption of energy in pigmented skin and increased risk of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation and scarring. This review summarizes the use of the top seven laser and EBDs for treating rosacea in SOC.

Background: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin condition associated with four distinct subtypes: erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular. Purpose: To review the different kinds of management for all subtypes. Methods: We divided rosacea management into three main categories: patient education, skin care, and pharmacological/procedural interventions. Results: Flushing is better prevented rather than treated, by avoiding specific triggers, decreasing transepidermal water loss by moisturizers, and blocking ultraviolet light. Nonselective β-blockers and α₂-adrenergic agonists decrease erythema and flushing. The topical α-adrenergic receptor agonist brimonidine tartrate 0.5% reduces persistent facial erythema. Intradermal botulinum toxin injection is almost safe and effective for the erythema and flushing. Flashlamp-pumped dye, potassium-titanyl-phosphate and pulsed-dye laser, and intense pulsed light are used for telangiectasias. Metronidazole 1% and azelaic acid 15% cream reduce the severity of erythema. Both systemic and topical remedies treat papulopustules. Systemic remedies include metronidazole, doxycycline, minocycline, clarithromycin and isotretinoin, while topical remedies are based on metronidazole 0.75%, azelaic acid 15 or 20%, sodium sulfacetamide, ivermectin 1%, permethrin 5%, and retinoid. Ocular involvement can be treated with oral or topical antibacterial. Rhinophyma can be corrected by dermatosurgical procedures, decortication, and various types of lasers. Conclusion: There are many options for rosacea management. Patients may have multiple subtypes, and each phase has its own treatment.

Melasma is a recalcitrant pigmentary disease with a complex pathogenesis. Monotherapy often results in unsatisfactory results with high recurrence rate. In this review article, we evaluate efficacy of energy-based devices combination therapy for melasma. We reviewed published literature since 2010 up to November 2020 regarding adjuvant therapy of energy-based devices with other treatment modalities in the treatment of melasma. After final selection, we assessed 49 articles. Energy-based devices include lasers, non-coherent lights, radiofrequency, iontophoresis, sonophoresis, microneedling, and microdermabrasion. Adjuvant therapies other than energy-based devices were lightening agents, chemical peels, platelet rich plasma (PRP) and mesotherapy. Combination of Q-switched neodymium-doped: yttrium, aluminum, and garnet (QSNY) with either intense pulsed light therapy (IPL) or pulsed-dye laser (PDL) are recommended in recalcitrant melasma in patients with light skin photo types and with dilated skin vessels (especially with PDL). Combination of fractional microneedling radiofrequency or microneedling with QSNY leads to promising results and is a safe treatment modality, especially in darker skin types. Application of topical lightening agents in combination with laser therapy leads to higher efficacy with less adverse effects (post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation) and rebound of melasma. Combination of ablative techniques with QSNY is not recommended, due to the high risk of permanent adverse effects such as guttate hypopigmentation and exacerbation of melasma.

Cutaneous telangiectases are a characteristic and psychologically distressing feature of SSc. Our aim was to assess the efficacy of two light-based treatments: pulsed dye laser (PDL) and intense pulsed light (IPL). Nineteen patients with facial or upper limb telangiectases underwent three treatments with PDL and IPL (randomly assigned to left- and right-sided lesions). Outcome measures were clinical photography (assessed by two clinicians), dermoscopy (assessed by two observers), laser Doppler imaging (LDI) and observer and patient opinion, including patient self-assessment psychological questionnaires [Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Adapted Satisfaction with Appearance Scale (ASWAP)]. Comparison between 16-week follow-up and baseline photography scores (from -2 to +2 on a Likert scale, with >0 being improvement) were a mean score for PDL of 1.7 (95% CI 1.4, 2.0) and for IPL 1.4 (0.9, 1.8), with a mean difference between PDL and IPL of -0.3 (-0.5, -0.1) (P = 0.01). Dermoscopy scores also improved with both therapies: PDL 1.3 (1.1, 1.5) and IPL 0.8 (0.5, 1.1), again greater with PDL (P = 0.01). LDI showed decreases in blood flow at 16 weeks, indicating a response to both therapies. All patients reported benefit from treatment (more preferred PDL at 16 weeks). Psychological questionnaires also indicated improvement after therapy with mean change in ASWAP of -13.9 (95% CI -20.5, -7.4). No side effects were reported for IPL; PDL caused transient bruising in most cases. Both PDL and IPL are effective treatments for SSc-related telangiectases. Outcome measures indicate that PDL has better outcomes in terms of appearance, although IPL had fewer side effects.

Pulsed dye laser (PDL) treatment currently represents the mainstream choice for port-wine stain (PWS) treatment in accordance with selective photothermolysis. However, most PWS lesions cannot be removed despite several treatments. Intense pulsed light (IPL) is reportedly an effective alternative to PDL for PWS treatment. No studies have thus far been reported on the combination therapy of PDL with IPL in PWS treatment. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of PDL with IPL for PWS treatment. A total of 33 PWS lesions underwent 3 treatment sessions. Each PWS was divided into IPL + PDL, PDL, and untreated sites. Therapeutic outcomes were evaluated by visual assessment and chromametric assessment 3 months after the final treatment. The overall average blanching rates were 36.2% and 32.6% at the sites treated with IPL + PDL and PDL, respectively (p > .05). No permanent side effects were reported. In this laser setting, although IPL + PDL is a safe and effective PWS treatment, no significant improvement in the efficacy was observed using IPL + PDL in contrast to PDL alone.

Pulsed dye laser (PDL) and intense pulsed light (IPL) have been used to treat striae distensae. To compare the difference between the treatment efficacy of PDL and IPL on striae distensae. Twenty patients with age ranging from 15 to 42 years were included in this study. All patients were treated on one side of their bodies with PDL and on the other side with IPL for 5 sessions with a 4-week interval between the sessions. Skin biopsies were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, Masson trichrome, orcein, Alcian blue, and anticollagen I α1. After both PDL and IPL, striae width was decreased and skin texture was improved in a highly significant manner. Collagen expression was increased in a highly significant manner after PDL and IPL. However, PDL induced the expression of collagen I in a highly significant manner compared with IPL, where p values were <.001 and .193, respectively. Striae rubra gave a superior response with either PDL or IPL compared with striae alba, which was evaluated clinically by the width, color, and texture, although the histological changes could not verify this consequence. Both PDL and IPL can enhance the clinical picture of striae through collagen stimulation.

ABSTRACTBackground: Laser and light-based therapies have often been used successfully to treat rosacea. Recently, short-pulsed intense pulsed light (IPL) that emitted pulse durations down to 0.5 ms was found to be effective for rosacea treatment.Objective: This study evaluated the efficacy of short-pulsed IPL in the treatment of rosacea compared with pulsed dye laser (PDL) using same pulse duration and fluence.Materials and Methods: Nine patients with rosacea were enrolled in a randomized, split-face trial. Each treatment consisted of four sessions at three-week intervals and followed up until three weeks after the last treatment. Efficacy was assessed by erythema, melanin index, physician’s subjective evaluation, and patient’s satisfaction.Results: The mean change in erythema index was −4.93 ± 1.59 for the short-pulsed IPL group and −4.27 ± 1.23 for the PDL group. The mean change in melanin index was −2.52 ± 2.45 for the short-pulsed IPL group and −1.95 ± 1.41 for the PDL group. There was no significant difference in either melanin or erythema index between short-pulsed IPL and PDL treatments, and there were no noticeable adverse events.Conclusions: There was no significant difference between PDL and short-pulsed IPL treatment using the same energies and pulse. Both PDL and short-pulsed IPL were satisfactory and safe for rosacea treatment.

A 6-month interval between systemic isotretinoin (ISO) and the initiation of energy-based interventions has been recommended, due to concerns about keloid formation and delayed wound healing. While this postponement goes against the current trend of early intervention for acne scarring. This systematic review evaluates the efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction of combinations of ISO with energy-based devices (EBD). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were comprehensively searched up to April 2023 according to PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts to select articles. The quality of the literature was assessed for each study design. A total of 16 studies addressing the efficacy and safety of energy-based modalities combined with ISO were identified, including six randomized controlled trials (RCTs), two case series, seven cohort studies, and one case report. ISO combinations with intense pulsed light (IPL), fractional ablative CO2 laser, pulsed dye laser (PDL), non-ablative fractional laser (NAFL) and fractional microneedle radiofrequency (FMRF) have been tested for improving acne severity, acne scarring and erythema. The current evidence does not justify delaying the use of EBDs for patients who have recently undergone or are currently receiving ISO treatment. Evidence-based treatments such as PDL, NAFL, and FMRF etc. are suggested relatively safe and effective in treating acne and acne scarring.

The current scenario and position of laser and light-based therapies (LLBT) in the therapeutic rosacea scheme are lacking evidence-based recommendations and comparisons on efficacy and tolerability among different devices. This article aimed to systematically compare the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of the pulsed dye laser (PDL) versus other devices. A literature search was conducted in March 2020. Four domains were analyzed throughout the following six outcomes: Spectrophotometer erythema index and percentage of reduction for background erythema, telangiectasia grading scale for telangiectasias, visual analog scale for pain, and physician's assessment and patient's satisfaction for treatment success. Our search yielded 423 potentially relevant studies. After removing the excluded and duplicated records, 12 records were assessed for eligibility in the meta-analysis. Erythema (RR:0.38 95%CI: -0.20-0.95), telangiectasias (RR:0.54 95%CI: -0.87-1.94), and the treatment success throughout the physician's assessment (RR:1.23 95%CI: 0.74-2.04) and the patient's satisfaction (RR:1.15 95%CI: 0.73-1.82) were not significantly different between pulsed dye laser and other LLBT. In the pain domain, PDL was as painful as other LLBT (RR:-0.23 95%CI: -0.96-0.49) but more painful than neodymium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser (RR:0.84 95%CI: 0.53-1.14) and less than intense pulsed light (RR:-1.18 95%CI: -1.56-0.80). This work based on previously published literature demonstrates that the quality of evidence to support any recommendation on LLBT in rosacea is low-to-moderate. Among all the available devices, PDL holds the most robust evidence, although in the meta-analysis the effectiveness was comparable to other LLBT, such as neodymium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser (Nd-YAG) or IPL.

Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation is a common consequence of inflammatory dermatoses. It is more common in patients with darker skin and has significant morbidity. This systematic review summarizes treatment outcomes for post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation to help physicians better predict clinical response and improve patient outcomes. Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed databases and clinicaltrials.gov were searched in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using a combination of relevant search terms. Title, abstract and full text screening were done in duplicate. Studies were included if they met our predetermined PICOS framework criteria. Results are presented in descriptive form. In total, 41 studies representing 877 patients were included. Complete response was achieved by laser and energy-based devices in 18.1% (n = 56/309) of patients, topicals in 5.4% (n = 20/369) and combination therapies in 2.4% (n = 4/166). Partial response was achieved by combination modalities in 84.9% (n = 141/166) of patients, topicals in 72.4% (n = 267/369), laser and energy-based devices in 61.2% (n = 189/309) and peels in 33.3% (n = 5/15). Poor to no response occurred with peels in 66.7% (n = 10/15) of patients, topicals in 22.2% (n = 82/369), laser and energy-based devices in 18.1% (n = 56/309) and combination modalities in 12.7% (n = 21/166). Additionally, in 2.6% (n = 8/309) of patients treated with laser and energy-based devices, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation worsened. Adverse events were reported in 10 patients, all while using topical treatments. In conclusion, the current treatment approaches yielded unsatisfactory rates of complete response. However, combination therapies, laser and energy-based devices and topical therapies showed high rates of partial response. Of note, the majority of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation cases included were associated with acne, and therefore, the findings and conclusions drawn may have limited applicability to other types of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation.

Melasma is a challenging pigmentation disorder for both the patient and the physician, particularly due to its frequent recurrences and resistance to standard therapies. Light and laser-based treatments are generally preferred when the condition is resistant to topical treatments. Intense pulsed light (IPL) is a light therapy that is both effective for epidermal and dermal melasma as well as vascular components, due to its broad range of energy. Compared to lasers and other energy-based devices, IPL offers broader wavelength coverage, deeper penetration, and the capacity to treat larger surface areas with reduced risk of collateral tissue damage. In this review, we will discuss about IPL mechanism in melasma and studies in the literature about IPL efficacy in melasma including its use as monotherapy and in combination with other modalities. While IPL monotherapy shows moderate improvement, the literature predominantly consists of combination therapy studies, limiting the ability to isolate IPL’s direct effectiveness. Future prospective studies with standardized protocols and extended follow-up are needed to define IPL’s optimal role in the management of melasma.